Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previouslyreported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."

I wanted to ask (almost) exactly the same thing, but then I decided that I don't know very much about copyright law in the US or the UK. Anyway, it seems that in the USA

In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether

The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

As with so many people in these near-xenophobic times, you appear to be making the incorrect assumption that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens. When the constitution means "United States" things, it explicitly says so. Section 8's enumerated power of copyright applies to all writings of authors everywhere in the world.

The Hobbit isn't the kind of book that makes me pissed off about length of copyright. After all, you can get a copy of it for as little as a dollar [amazon.com]. Meanwhile, in my own field of linguistics, there are quite old works that are still useful, but they are still under copyright. In one case, the rights are owned by the academic publisher Routledge, which obscenely prices [amazon.com] a 100-page paperback as high as $135. When students can't build up a library of important literature, and scholarship is impaired, then there

another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff.

In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

The only excitement you might get is following Aragorn incognito in the guard of Minas Tirith. But to what end?

Maybe it's a comedy about a bunch of Orcish misfits called "Auf Wiedersehen, Nazgul"?

Other than that, without resorting to making stuff up, there's really not a lot going on outside Mordor is there? LoTR makes it pretty clear that pretty much everyone got caught off guard by Sauron's return to Barad-dur, and even Gandalf's suspicions only got roused by Bilbo's disappearing act at his birthday party at the start of LoTR. The only other thing I can think

I would guess the point of filming that period is that it would allow Jackson to make a lot of the content himself. It's probably a lot easier to please everyone that way. The lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.

I know there are going to be people who are going to fight me on this but... I realize that Jackson had a ton of material to work with and not all of it was going to end up in the films. I understand this about The Hobbit too. What irks me is that Jackson, at points, went out of his way to botch the film-book relationship. He took up creative license in areas where the books had just as good of an answer that would have req

The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.

Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

On the other hand, I was pretty irritated when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep. I'll admit, 300 against tens of thousands looks pretty ridiculous on screen (even if it's Spartans v. Persians, never mind scraggly horsemen v. orcs), but the additional troops robbed it of that 'Battle of New Orleans' sort of feel, and also made the elves unnecessarily sympathetic.

Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

Treebeard was not by any means out-of-touch with the world. He was fully aware of what was going on, as he had had many sources of information -- Gandalf and and even Saruman had once spoken often with him, beca

The one thing that I did miss in the movies that wasn't there from the books was the sense of joy and mirth that the elves can have. I mean, it was much more prevalent in the Hobbit than it was in LOTR, but it was still very much out of character in the movies. The elves were always sad and somber, never happy and singing, and they were constantly singing in the books. They moved and walked and talked slowly and deliberate, whereas in the book they were whooping and hollering and asking Bilbo for a 2nd r

At this point I don't care who directs The Hobbit. In a lot of ways I don't even care if it ever gets made. This is largely due to seeing how much Jackson got away with botching LOTRs and now has set up a precedent for the future botching of JRRTs works.

I couldn't agree more. While all around me were raving about the LOTR films, I was hanging my head in disbelief at how badly Jackson had screwed them up.
I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for "The Hobbit" to never be made into a film

Why can't you just accept both versions as seperate works, and enjoy them. I see Jackson's LotR films as an adaptation inspired by the books. I've read the books many times over, and agree that a direct page-for-page film would be both extremely long and boring. Movies by their nature need to have dramatic events, action, and at times exaggerated events to keep the audience interested and excited. A book, on the other hand, can take more time to delve deeper since it doesn't have to fit into a 2-3 hour

Why can't you just accept both versions as seperate works, and enjoy them. I see Jackson's LotR films as an adaptation inspired by the books. I've read the books many times over, and agree that a direct page-for-page film would be both extremely long and boring.

Yes, some additions and omissions were quite understandable (though I did miss the Scourge of the Shire scene, which I think was the whole point of the original books), but there wasn't really any reason to change some of the key scenes in the

Agreed.Dwarves, Elves, and Humans were already fighting Suaron on their own fronts by the time they talked about it at Elrond's Rivendell council in Fellowship. Plenty of elaborate battle scenes for Jackson to film. If they can get at least a handful of the same actors from the other movies, they'll do fine.

They can also inject the revelation that Frodo has an unusually high midichlorian count. Something has to explain the hobbits unnatural hardiness against the dark call of the ring! Why not explain it with random new science!

Isn't there at least 1/2 a page in the Silmarillion telling all that's happening during all that time ?

I suppose some kind of anthropological documentary on hole digging in the Shire and Barad-Dur building in Mordor could have some kind of thing going for it... If they get a good actor to read the commentary... They could sell it to National Geographic or something.

While I think the movies are good I don't think they are exactly Tolkien. Its more like Peter Jackson's LOTR instead of Tolkien. A few liberties were taken but for the most part they didn't damage the story. Sure you will find a few Tolkien fanatics who can recite a dozen if not hundred changes/errors/omissions but these are the same types that would not be please unless even the dialog matched word for word... and still they would find something amiss!As for the whole part of "between the hobbit and LO

There were significant 'invented' plot lines, and a number of characters had their personalities seriously warped. Jackson couldn't have even read JRRT's complaints about plans made in his lifetime because he repeated many of the same mistakes.

While not entirely successful, changes were necessary to make it possible to make a poetic work function dramatically.

Dramatic storytelling is fundamentally unrealistic, because it overemphasizes the power of an individual's ability to control situations through their decisions. LotR doesn't believe the fundamental model. In LotR, no individual is capable of achieving success. While individuals may fail through their own actions, they cannot succeed. This is a profoundly un-dramatic viewpoint; the rules of drama say that the protagonist must overcome adversity through his own virtues. In LotR, characters may attain their ends, but they do not achieve them. It is not accidental that Frodo fails in his quest, it is a deliberate philosophical statement about the action of grace in the lives of people who at least try to be virtuous.

In Tolkien's world view, the agency of individuals even in their own decisions is limited. People roll along in the grooves that their habitual actions have worn in their character. We are carefully presented with pairs of characters in which the practice or non practice of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love play out in their destinies: Frodo/Gollum, Theoden/Denethor, Faramir/Boromir. The idea that a character's destiny is part of a larger process than the events of the story is also anti-dramatic.

It is inevitable that changes are made to make the movie work dramatically -- at the very least the elaborate parallelism of Tolkien would have doubled the length of the movies. This is not heresy, Tolkien himself was the kind of author who never stopped changing a manuscript until it was torn from his hands. Some of the movie changes work, some of them don't.

The changes that don't work fail because the story is simply too complex already for them to be developed adequately. As it is, considerable familiarity with the story is needed to follow the movies. The story changes work to the degree their ends are consistent with time available. The changes in Faramir, for example, simply don't ring true, because there isn't enough time to show him making a believable "change of heart" decision. Rewriting Theoden's death scene to be played with Eowyn was not only time efficient, it heightened the emotional impact of the scene. It also brings the somewhat brash screen Theoden back to Tolkien's Theoden, whose saving grace was humility.

Many changes were done to preserve pieces of poetry in the original; Eomer's words are put in Theoden's mouth; the words of the unnamed narrator are put in Gandalf's mouth. By in large these are to the benefit of the movies in that they preserve some of the beauty of the original.

I was watching the DVD of Return of the King recently, and I was particularly struck by the Rohirrim in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. This was of course altered to fit the needs of dramatization, but I believe Tolkien would have been thrilled. It shows how Jackson understands the heroic values of Lord of the Rings, even if he is not 100% successful in translating those values to the screen: heroism is not conferred by victory, but by acting courageously when reason tells you victory is impossible.

Very similar thoughts were running trough my head when I finished "Return of the King". Well, yes, movies departs from books for exact reason you mentioned - they are very antidramatic. In fact, if shot row by row, it would be deadly boring movie. Not so much inner conflicts, no big disagreements and tragedies rised from that, etc. Peter with a team did very good and huge job in adding drama to material, yet keeping tone of legendarium intact. By adding some dramatical signatures, finally you can understand

So, in nutshell, I love transformation of Middle Earth by Jackson for movies - and this is reason why I want to make him more LOTR movies, even maybe some DVD only serial about ancient times. He digs and understands this world very well.

Also, in a nutshell, there are a total of three outright changes to the story that I unequivocally liked: (1) giving Theoden most of the alliterative poetry lines, (2) Replacing Merry with Eowyn at Theoden's death scene, (3) giving Gandalf the lines of the unnamed narrator f

Obviously "changes were necessary," it's the specific changes people are dissatisfied with.

Which was pretty much inevitable. No two people would make the same choices, therefore any specific changes are bound to cause dissatisfaction in some people. Fan satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not a viable criterion for judging whether a change works.

My opinion is that in order for changes to work, they have to have screen time to play out. This means that reasonable changes that condense the story nearly always

Pull the other one, Gomer. That's quite a claim. As an egregious insult, might I add that you must really be a fanboy.

Actually, my claims are not sweeping at all. You have the burden of proof here: what changes were actually arbitrary? Propose some examples, and we will see.

I've read books others have written, as well. Wow, what a great accomplishment.
I guess your vague, rambling brook-no-criticism-of-Jackson-whatsoever opinion should therefore be taken very seriously, then.

Maybe the parent poster thinks he's a better judge of what should work than the author himself, but personally, I doubt it.

No, I doubt it too. Because everyone knows that a truly gifted author such as Tolkein must by virtue of being a skilled author of novels and short stories also be a master of film as well. They are basically the same medium, after all. So a defense of Peter Jackson's decisions is clearly unfounded, as Jackson, being a mere director, could not possibly have any idea what makes a good

Irony aside, so far as I know Tolkien published only one dramatic piece: a short play based on events related in The Battle of Maldon.It is an interesting piece, although I'm not entirely sure it is skillfully done, in the sense of being something that you could succefully stage. It's a bit like Michael Jordan trying out baseball a few years ago, in that it suggests intriguing possibilities for how things might have gone differently if Tolkien had applied himself in that direction early on. He was a gifte

The GP (or whatever depth of ancestry he's at now) was essentially a defense of Jackson's decisions to make the story more dramatic for the screen, with only a couple very obvious opinions such as that not every change worked, and that changes requiring additional explanations in an already dense story were less likely to work. You attempt to discredit the post by comparing the post's author to Tolkien in an appeal to authority. Yet the real match up is Jackson vs Tolkien, and while Tolkien would be an au

I didn't think the movies fit my experience of the books, but in hindsight I believe his interpretation is more true to the books than mine. I think it largely stems from him making it much more of an "grown up" experience than what I saw the book as. The movies were gloomy - reinforced by the soundtrack and the level of color saturation -, but the books never seemed that way to me. I read LOTR for the first time when I was around 13, and that probably has colored my impression of it a it.

No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?

When I think how incredibly bad it could have been, I'm really glad Jackson delivered a decent adaptation. It may not be not insanely great, but it's fair, and given the complexity of the task that's already quite something IMO.

Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.

Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.

David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.

Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.

David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.

Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.

Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.

Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).

Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.

Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").

Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.

George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.

Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.

---

I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.

I think you have to look at the other Tolkien movies (all animated - The Hobbit, The Return of the King, and The Lord of the Rings.) Jackson did not do any worse, and in some cases much, much better.The main problem I had with Jackson's version is that he left out or didn't do justice to what I thought were some of the most memorable "scenes" from the book. In particular, he made the battle for Minas Tirith pretty spectacular, but things like Gandalf's standoff with the witchking, Aragon's banner coming up

Do we honestly care if he directs them? I mean, we care that a bad director doesn't get to, but as long as it's a decent director, does it really matter who it is?

On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.

Well, if we care about the look and feel and tone to be close to the LOTR movies...then yeah.The Harry Potter movies have different directors and every one of them since the second one has a slightly different look and tone to it. For instance, why totally change the way certain sets look? Hagred's cabin was the same in the first two movies (that had the same director), yet in the third movie they had to go and change it to look different. That's just a "for instance".

I'd be gutted if Jackson directed The Hobbit and shudder to think what he is going to change this time round.Will the cavalry come to the rescue again in the battle of the five armies?Will he really portray the elves as nasty pieces of work?Will he be able to capture the humour of the moment in a story that is often very amusing? LOTR (the film) wasn't exactly a laugh a minute was it despite having two natural comics in Pippin and Merry.What about the 60 years in-between? Well I do think we have enough info

That is indeed what I meant about the elves. After Jackson's comprehensive misrepresentation of them in LOTR I'd have real doubts about his ability to give them their real face in the Hobbit.Instead of Bilbo rescuing the dwarves from the spiders he'd probably have Arwen rescuing Bilbo then taking him to those nice wood elves to receive splendid gifts and advice on how to kill dragons.No cancel that he'll probably have Arwen riding the damn dragon.No cancel all of that I don't want to put ideas into his head

I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.

boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years?

Well, based on secret Tolkein notes in my possession which I found taped to the back of a forgery of the Mona Lisa, Middle Earth developed transforming robot technology by deeply studying the Ents killed while deforesting vast tracts of land to build huge areas where people could shop for goods and services.

There was eventually a brutal war that, amongst other things, reduced all subsequent Kings of Men to whiny little sissy boys with girly hair. Something to do with a demasculation spell getting tangled up with an elven birth control device.

The technology was banned when a hobbit named Periwinkle Butler lead a jihad against "the evil devices that move of their own volition". It was actually sticken from the historical record, and people forgot all about it due to a forget spell leaking in from a parallel fantasy Universe called Xanth. This is why it's never mention in LOTR.

They don't really even have politics

Which makes then the most advanced and enlightened race in all of Middle Earth.

Let's see, Jackson only made them what, $3 billion dollars? I think each movie was directly good for around a billion, plus or minus $100 million, and this is talking straight box office, not even considering DVD's, TV rights, moichandizin', etc. I would be no way surprised in hearing the total take is up to $5 billion at this point, and a project like this is going to be like Star Wars or the goddamn Beatles catalog, a fat stream of recurring revenue for decades to come. And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy? Do they think they could have pulled it together without someone like Peter Jackson at the helm? By all rights, the trilogy should have flopped -- Hollywood can't do quality. LOTR being brilliant is about as long of odds as Babylon 5 finishing its entire five year run and only sucking in the last season.

So New Line realizes they could stop buggering the goose that laid the golden egg and make another fat pile of shiny if they treat it nice? DUUUH, but still a bit of cluefulness not expected from Hollywood. Now go make the movie!

And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy?

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

In addition, they renegotiated contracts with pay rises for members of the crew after the crew discovered that they were really onto something, and New Line wasn't spreading the wealth.

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

That's part of what I find so amazing. When I was watching the commentaries and hearing about the turmoil they went through, I was shocked that the movies were great, let alone watchable. I mean, they recast Aragorn in the middle of filming! Pages of script were getting rewritten as the scenes were being acted. In the Babylon 5 commentaries, JMS descripted this as being the norm on network television and was one of the reasons why he felt he could do Babylon 5 for half the budget most would estimate, because the scripts would be written far in advance and the production staff could plan things out in advance. It's the surprises, last minute changes, and overtime pay in the mad dash to get things done that kills budgets along with quality. If I'd heard the production story before seeing the movie, I would have predicted utter failure.

Yeah, and the parade of nameless directors of the Harry Potter films are responsible for their success as well!

First off, Potter ain't Lord of the Rings.

Funny how none of the great Peter Jackson's other movies can manage to make a dime, what with his tremendous appeal and all. It's almost as if the draw of LOTR had nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Second off, how many good properties have you seen absolutely murdered on-screen? Starship Troopers anyone? how about Disney adaptations of fantasy? Yuck. Or look at Transformers -- not that I was holding out hope for it, not being a nerdy adult fan or anything, but by Azathtoth that was an awful bit of cinematic diarrhea. Lord of the Rings could just as easily been like that with farting hobbits, peeing orcs, and Gandalf cracking dick jokes. Hell, they would have

I really enjoyed LOTR, really, but there is a project that Weta has in the pocket that I would like much more to see realized: a live-action Evangelion movie. They have being studying it for quite some time but it's "on hold" [wetaworkshop.co.nz] for quite some time already.

I mean really. He did a good job overall, quibbling over storyline changes from the books notwithstanding. That being said, there are a lot of very competent directors out there who would jump at the chance at doing an adaptation of _The Hobbit_. The real genius was Tolkien, not Jackson. Let him have Tintin, hire another director and give us a good movie.

HOLLYHELL, Monday — In an admirable display of synergy between hard-headed business sense and sensitivity to artistic rightness, New Line Cinemas has hired Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.

"Peter Jackson may have made us three billion dollars and paved our goddamn driveways with Oscars," said a spokesdroid, "but when he dared question the three nickels and a gum wrapper payment, well. We knew we just couldn't work with someone so risibly unprofessional."

Sandler is likely to be working under renowned producer Uwe Boll. "Okay, here is what I am thinking, ja? Your Bilbo Baggins will be a WOMAN in Nazi Germany. A naked woman. And the One Ring will not show up. And she gets raped by Hitler! Gandalf will be played by Keanu Reeves. I AM THE DIRECTOR! I mean programmer. PRODUCER."

Jackson has lost weight, shaved his feet and gone back to his roots to make a warmhearted New Zealand-based family film in the style of his earliest works, under the working title Zombie Cancer Bukkake Pus-Nodules, with a budget in the range of over forty New Zealand dollars.

Work at New Line continues. "We at New Line are convinced that Professor Tolkien would have agreed with us that Adam Sandler will realise her artistic vision eleventy-one percent. We've bought three years' worth of shark futures."

Is it too much to ask to have a date of publication listed at the start of the article? I thought this was old news the instant I read the first paragraph. The description of Homo floresiensis was first published in October 2004. (Yes, I realize that EW.com was referring to the Science article which was published last month, but they make it sound like Science broke the story.)

Technically, MGM owns the production rights to The Hobbit. New Line and MGM currently have a partnership agreement to produce The Hobbit, but the rights revert back to Saul Zaentz sometime next year if principal production hasn't begun. Since Michael Shaye (president of New Line) has been such a dick to Jackson in recent months, it makes total sense for MGM to stall the process until the rights revert, then MGM and Jackson can repurchase the rights and make the film(s) Jackson wants, which will please the fans and cut New Line out of any revenue from it.

The fans, MGM, and Zaentz all want Jackson to direct.

Zaentz bought the film rights for all of Tolkien's works in 1971 so the Professor could pay back taxes. Tolkien didn't believe any part of Middle Earth could be done justice on the big screen.

Oh, and the scouring of the shire also...so after a HUGE battle...then another HUGE battle, you get the destruction of Sauron and the aftermath...then ANOTHER half an hour to 45 minutes of resolving stuff in the shire...THEN the Grey Havens, THEN Sam coming back.Yep, the general public already complained that there were 3 endeds to Return of the King, why not throw a 4th one in there also....just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy.

just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy

Such people are never happy with any adaptation no matter how close to the original material. It's simply not possible to adapt such a story to the cinema and not change things. At the very minimum it's impossible to match what such pedants imagined in their heads so something will always bother them.

I'm one of those 4 people. It should have been 6 movies and every single nuance should have been added, and eight million other nuances (which were 100% faithful to the "canon") could have been worked in to keep people interesting.

The interesting thing about LOTR was the internal cohesion of the world. It was never "great literature."

Actually, yes, but not as you put it. The Return of the King should have ended with Aragorn's crowning which seems a natural end. Then the Scouring of the Shire could have been a seperate short film. Saruman is assumed locked up in Orthanc, guarded by the Ents, so nothing more needs to be done there.

Mind you, I really liked the films and I'd already read the books too many times too count, so it's not all fans who were disappointed. There were some aspects I didn't

Or...you could just not go. You obviously didn't like the LOTR movies, and that would be apparent that you didn't like them right from the first movie...so I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

If you think that Peter Jackson ruined the movies for you, why did you watch all 3? Or did you? Or are you just a troll?

I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

Saw the first in the cinema, said I wasn't going to pay to sit throught that sort of crap again. Fiancee talked me into going to the second shit-fest. That was that. I've never seen the third and I still want my money back for the first two. Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghost town.

Cool...though you don't bring up specifics. "shit-fest" and "crap" don't really explain much on what you thought was wrong with the movies in relation to the books or what your criticism is at all. Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems rather juvenile...which would lead one to believe it's more troll than actual criticism.

Nevermind, you kind of explained it in another post. Opinions differ. I happened to think he did a great job of adaptation. But will my opinion change your opinion? Nope...same as yours won't change mine.

I may not like your opinion...but I will fight to the death for my right to fight to the death with you!

Actually I watched all 3. The first one was pretty good, the second also - despite the fact that it deviated somewhat from the books it included enough original Tolkien to make it worthwhile. The third - where to begin? Perhaps the only thing it has in common with the book is that Sauron is defeated. Why base a story on a book if you're going to write your own script? Instead of a beautiful, subtle story and build-up of tension and suspense, it was turned into standard Hollywood crap, filled with clich

No, of course you're entitled to your opinion. I was railing more on the "it sucks, nuff said" type of criticism. When I see or read something that I don't like and take the time to write about not liking it, I usually explain why I didn't like it.I happen to love the books...read them back in the 70's when I was a teen and re-read them every few years. I knew from the beginning that the movies were NOT going to be verbatim like the books and some things in the movies really bugged me, but overall the movie

"All Tolkien fans wanted to like the movies, those of us who loved all three of the books, just didnt like PJ's production very much."Bullshit. Where do you get off saying that if you loved the books, you didn't like the films? If that's the extent of your ability to think, can't say it gives much validity to your opinion.

"Isnt it terrible when the thing you like so much is hated by others who seem more invested in the thing than you are?"